For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt. Markdown variants of the ranked boards (dynasty and fantasy rankings for NFL, NBA, MLB and CFB) are available by appending.mdto those URLs or by sendingAccept: text/markdown; other pages answer 404.
Not startedThis page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
polling · 300s tick · as of 6:40 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 10 · Sun, Nov 12, 2023 · SoFi Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 10
It turned at Q4 3:42, 4th and 1, on Keenan Allen — 26.2 win-probability points to the Chargers on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Detroit Lions 41–38 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 3:42, Chargers +26.2% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 3:42 · 4th and 1
Keenan Allen
Chargers
(3:42) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep right to 13-K.Allen for 38 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
26.2
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Running the ball
Lions won this one — +0.44 expected points per carry, against Chargers at -0.10 expected points per carry.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Lions won this one — 10 chunk plays, against Chargers at 6 chunk plays.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Lions won this one — +0.45 expected points per snap, against Chargers at +0.20 expected points per snap.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Chargers owned this one and still lost it — 7 of 14 on third down, against Lions at 4 of 12 on third down.
Chargersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Who won it for them
What it says about next week
Note
The model against the market, the momentum underneath, every drive — scrub to replay it
The model and the market were 8.7 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 16 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Chargers.
(3:42) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep right to 13-K.Allen for 38 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Riley Patterson's 41-yard field goal with 0:02 left in the 4th put Detroit Lions ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Riley Patterson41-yd field goal41-yard field goalholder J.Fox · snap J.McQuaideLead never changed again+341–3813 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Lionscategory by categoryChargers
Lions ahead 5–1 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — turnovers.
Expected points added, per play
The centre line is an average play. A bar to the right of it is a side that gained more than the situation was worth; a bar to the left is a side that lost ground. All six bars share one scale, ±0.45 points.
Every snapexpected points added per play, all downs
Dropping backexpected points added per dropback
Running itexpected points added per rush
Neither side “wins” volume or play-calling mix, so neither is drawn as a duel: Lions ran 61 snaps at a 54% dropback rate against Chargers’s 68 at 60%. Red-zone trips: Lions 8, Chargers 5.
Lions won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.45 expected points added per play vs 0.20.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
12 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor and were tested against four comparisons: this week's whole slate, the team's own season, the week before, and the team's own ordinary spread. Every bar below is set in that team's own week-to-week swing, never in league points — one team's swing runs 1.6 to 3.1 times the entire league's spread.
LAC's play-action rate, 4.9%, is past their previous low of 16.7% in week 7 — the lowest of their 9 charted games through week 10.
41 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.2 points. · −2.1σ from their own normal
DET's fourth-and-short go rate, 100.0%, sat 40.6 points above their season number of 59.4% — they went for it by 2.0 times their own 19.9-point weekly swing.
5 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 9 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 19.9 points. · +2.0σ from their own normal
LAC's blitz rate sent, 42.4%, is past their previous high of 38.2% in week 3 — the highest of their 9 charted games through week 10.
33 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.3 points. · +1.2σ from their own normal
LAC's fourth-and-short go rate turned over: 0.0% in week 9 against 60.0% here — they took the kick then and went for it now, a turn of 2.4 of their own weekly swings across the two.
5 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 14 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 25.0 points. · +0.9σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
12 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor. Every deviation below is measured in that team's own game-to-game swing, not in league points — because one game's swing runs from 1.6 to 3.1 times the whole league's spread.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -26 pts to 21 pts
Over Expected room →Lions-2.2 ptsright on their number · +1.7 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±8.4 week to week (+0.20× that swing) · 61 snaps
Chargers-0.6 ptsright on their number · −1.3 vs their 0.7 pts, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (−0.17× that swing) · 68 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 26% to 84%
Tendencies room →Lions50.0%right on their number · −2.7 vs their 52.7%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (−0.26× that swing) · 44 early downs
Chargers56.9%right on their number · −3.4 vs their 60.3%, and they swing ±9.1 week to week (−0.38× that swing) · 51 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -3% to 53%
Tendencies room →Lions30.3%inside their normal wobble · +5.6 vs their 24.7%, and they swing ±11.0 week to week (+0.51× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
Chargers4.9%off script — dropped back clean · −15.5 vs their 20.3%, and they swing ±7.2 week to week (−2.14× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -26% to 113%
Fourth Down room →Lions100.0%off script — went for it · +40.6 vs their 59.4%, and they swing ±19.9 week to week (+2.03× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
Chargers60.0%inside their normal wobble · +21.8 vs their 38.2%, and they swing ±25.0 week to week (+0.87× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 3% to 62%
Tendencies room →Lions39.0%right on their number · +3.6 vs their 35.4%, and they swing ±10.3 week to week (+0.35× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Chargers42.4%leaned — sent pressure · +12.6 vs their 29.8%, and they swing ±10.3 week to week (+1.23× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 39%
Tendencies room →Lions12.2%inside their normal wobble · −5.3 vs their 17.5%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (−0.62× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Chargers6.1%leaned — stayed blocked · −7.4 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±6.9 week to week (−1.08× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
LAC's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 4.9%, 15.5 points below their season mean of 20.3% and 2.1 times their own 7.2-point weekly swing.
Who was out, who dressed and never took a snap, and who was on the field how much. Game-day list and snap counts from the weekly roster and snap feeds. Practice-squad and injured-reserve players are not shown — they were never on the game-day list.
Detroit Lions
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · DET
23/33, 333 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
14.8 expected points added · +1.3% completion over expected
Passing · LAC
27/40, 323 yds, 4 TD, 1 INT
14.6 expected points added · -2.2% completion over expected
Receiving · LAC
11/14 for 175 yds, 2 TD
35% of team targets · 17.3 expected points added
Receiving · DET
8/9 for 156 yds, 1 TD
28% of team targets · 13.0 expected points added
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land the morning after the game, not live.
Keenan Allen banked 17.4 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keenan AllenWR · Alpha Receiver | 40.5 | +17.4 | 75% | 88% | 35% | 52% | 11/14, 175 yd, 2 TD |
| Amon-Ra St. BrownWR · Alpha Receiver | 30.5 | +7.2 | 92% | 94% | 28% | 47% | 2 car, 9 yd · 8/9, 156 yd, 1 TD |
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 28.4 | +1.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 27/40, 323 yd, 4 TD, 1 INT · 4 car, 15 yd |
| Jahmyr GibbsRB · Committee Back | 26.2 | −0.3 | 58% | 64% | 16% | 2% | 14 car, 77 yd, 2 TD · 3/5, 35 yd |
| Austin EkelerRB · Bell Cow Back | 21.5 | −7.5 | 69% | 66% | 18% | 0% | 19 car, 67 yd, 1 TD · 4/7, 48 yd |
| Jared GoffQB · Starter QB | 21.1 | +1.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 23/33, 333 yd, 2 TD · 3 car, -2 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB | 17.6 | +3.5 | 38% | 36% | 0% | — | 12 car, 116 yd, 1 TD |
| Jalen GuytonWR · Rotational Receiver | 14.1 | +2.5 | 79% | 85% | 15% | 22% | 4/6, 41 yd, 1 TD |
| Quentin JohnstonWR · Rotational Receiver | 13.4 | +4.9 | 85% | 85% | 10% | 9% | 4/4, 34 yd, 1 TD |
| Brock WrightTE · Rotational Receiver | 10.3 | +3.7 | 52% | 45% | 9% | 5% | 2/3, 23 yd, 1 TD |
| Sam LaPortaTE · Rotational Receiver | 8.0 | −0.8 | 80% | 79% | 16% | 19% | 4/5, 40 yd |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.6 | +0.3 | 26% | 33% | 13% | 6% | 2/4, 46 yd |
| Jameson WilliamsWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.8 | +0.3 | 52% | 55% | 6% | 5% | 2/2, 18 yd |
| Donald ParhamTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.8 | +0.9 | 44% | 39% | 5% | 2% | 2/2, 18 yd |
| Josh ReynoldsWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.5 | −3.3 | 70% | 79% | 13% | 16% | 2/4, 15 yd |
| Derius DavisWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.7 | −0.2 | 25% | 22% | 5% | 0% | 2/2, 7 yd |
| Joshua KelleyRB | 1.6 | −0.7 | 31% | 34% | 0% | — | 5 car, 16 yd |
| Gerald EverettTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.2 | 33% | 41% | 5% | 11% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Stone SmarttTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −7.6 | 31% | 29% | 8% | 14% | 0/3, 0 yd |
Expected points are modelled in full PPR, so the “vs expected” column stays in that unit whichever format the pills are set to. Switching the pills changes the points column, not the plane.
The whole game as one hundred yards. The Chargers attack right, the Lions attack left, so a change of possession is a reversal you can see. Reading down is the order the snaps were played — not the clock, so a two-minute drill gets the same room as any other fourteen snaps. This game is final.
(3:42) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep right to 13-K.Allen for 38 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q4 3:42 · Chargers · 4th & 1 at DET 38 · gained 38 · +5.81 EP · +35.3% win probability
169 snaps placed · 11 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 180 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 169 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 175. Everything here paints the morning after the week's games — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
13 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was LAC moving 92 yards from the LAC 8 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; LAC attacks right, DET attacks left. Hatching marks a trip inside the twenty.
Offensive grouping on every pass and run. A group needs five snaps in this game before it gets a number — under that the sample is a coin flip and the cell reads a dash instead. Open any play above to see the eleven men who were actually on the field for it.
180 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
180 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
Lions3
Chargers0Lions3Chargers3Lions9Chargers3Lions10Chargers3Lions16Chargers3Lions17Chargers3Lions17Chargers9Lions17Chargers10How the play was built
A man in motion.
Lions23Chargers10Lions24Chargers10Lions24Chargers16Lions24Chargers17How the play was built
A run-pass option, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
Lions24Chargers23Lions24Chargers24How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a screen, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Lions30Chargers24Lions31Chargers24How the play was built
Two in the backfield, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Lions31Chargers30Lions31Chargers31How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Lions37Chargers31Lions38Chargers31How the play was built
A run-pass option, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, from outside the pocket.
Lions38Chargers37Lions38Chargers38How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
Lions41Chargers38Win probability is the league play-by-play model, 98.5% of plays · a dash means none was published
Just the plays, on their own page: Lions at Chargers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Goff | 23/33 | 333 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +14.8 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 12 | 116 | 9.7 | 1 | +6.4 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 14 | 77 | 5.5 | 2 | +4.2 |
| Amon-Ra St. Brown |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 8 | 9 | 156 | 1 | 28% | +13.0 |
| Kalif Raymond | 2 | 4 | 46 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Anzalone | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tracy Walker III | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alim McNeill |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 27/40 | 323 | 4 | 1 | 0 | +14.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|
Every number on them comes from the same read as this page, and each one says in words where it came from.
How the win probability moved, the three snaps that bent it, and every drive in order.
/football/games/2023_10_DET_LAC
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Lions closed -2.5 and covered, winning by 3.
Total closed 48.5; the game landed 79 — over by 30.5.
Conditions and crew
| 2 |
| 9 |
| 4.5 |
| 0 |
| +1.8 |
| Jared Goff | 3 | -2 | -0.7 | 0 | −0.7 |
| 13% |
| −0.0 |
| Sam LaPorta | 4 | 5 | 40 | 0 | 16% | +3.4 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 3 | 5 | 35 | 0 | 16% | −1.1 |
| Brock Wright | 2 | 3 | 23 | 1 | 9% | +1.5 |
| Jameson Williams | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 6% | +0.3 |
| Josh Reynolds | 2 | 4 | 15 | 0 | 13% | +2.7 |
| 2 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Kerby Joseph | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Cameron Sutton | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Derrick Barnes | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Campbell | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Benito Jones | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Malcolm Rodriguez | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brian Branch | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Ekeler | 19 | 67 | 3.5 | 1 | −0.9 |
| Joshua Kelley | 5 | 16 | 3.2 | 0 | −1.7 |
| Justin Herbert | 4 | 15 | 3.8 | 0 | +1.7 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keenan Allen | 11 | 14 | 175 | 2 | 35% | +17.3 |
| Austin Ekeler | 4 | 7 | 48 | 0 | 18% | −0.7 |
| Jalen Guyton | 4 | 6 | 41 | 1 | 15% | +1.5 |
| Quentin Johnston | 4 | 4 | 34 | 1 | 10% | +4.9 |
| Donald Parham | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 5% | +0.9 |
| Derius Davis | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 5% | −0.5 |
| Gerald Everett | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5% | −5.4 |
| Stone Smartt | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 8% | −3.4 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derwin James | 7 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alohi Gilman | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Eric Kendricks | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenneth Murray | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Deane Leonard | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ja'Sir Taylor | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nicholas Williams | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Mack | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Harris | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joey Bosa | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
